Download R Versions

Versions received the first bold user interface refresh in 10 years. From a new app icon, a revamped toolbar to support for the gorgeous Dark Appearance, Versions fully embraces macOS Ventura.

Before upgrading to a new REST API version, you should read the changelog of breaking changes for the new API version to understand what breaking changes are included and to learn more about how to upgrade to that specific API version. For more information, see "Breaking changes."

Download R Versions

Download File 🔥 https://urlin.us/2y5GE8 🔥

When you update your integration to specify the new API version in the X-GitHub-Api-Version header, you'll also need to make any changes required for your integration to work with the new API version.

You can use versions to manage the deployment of your functions. For example, you can publish a new version of a function for beta testing without affecting users of the stable production version. Lambda creates a new version of your function each time that you publish the function. The new version is a copy of the unpublished version of the function. The unpublished version is named $LATEST.

You can't publish your function and create a new version if the unpublished version ($LATEST) is the same as the previous published version. You need to deploy code changes or make updates to your function's environment variables in $LATEST before you can create a new version.

When using runtime management controls with Auto mode, the runtime version used by the function version is updated automatically. When using Function update or Manual mode, the runtime version is not updated. For more information, see Lambda runtime updates.

You can change the function code and settings only on the unpublished version of a function. When you publish a version, Lambda locks the code and most of the settings to maintain a consistent experience for users of that version. For more information about configuring function settings, see Configuring Lambda function options.

The following AWS CLI command publishes a new version of a function. The response returns configuration information about the new version, including the version number and the function ARN with the version suffix.

If you decide not to publish function versions, you can invoke the function using either the qualified or unqualified ARN in your event source mapping. When you invoke a function using an unqualified ARN, Lambda implicitly invokes $LATEST.

Lambda publishes a new function version only if the code has never been published or if the code has changed from the last published version. If there is no change, the function version remains at the last published version.

You can use a resource-based policy or an identity-based policy to grant access to your function. The scope of the permission depends on whether you apply the policy to a function or to one version of a function. For more information about function resource names in policies, see Resources and conditions for Lambda actions.

This page identifies the principal improvements to the Creative Commons license suite since the publication of the first licenses (version 1.0) in December 2002, through the current version 4.0, published November 2013. It also highlights important similarities and differences among the major license versions. For more information on using CC tools or works offered under Creative Commons licenses, consult the Frequently Asked Questions page. For a further historical perspective, you are invited to review deprecated CC legal tools identified on the retired legal tools page.

Please note that the summaries below may not reflect all changes between license versions or fully or accurately describe the differences between them. CC cannot provide legal advice, and what follows is not legal advice. What follows below is a general description of differences and similarities between the license versions, for general informational purposes only. Consult your own attorney if you are in need of legal advice.

The chart below presents the major license versions, launch dates, and blog posts announcing major public comment periods, the launch of each license suite, and improvements. It does not reference the unfinished version 3.x (3.01 or 3.5) licenses, which did not include active public consultation and were never published. Version 4.0 is the premier, recommended Creative Commons license suite.

The public license development process includes the publication of drafts, formal comment periods, and transparent decision-making. In recognition of its stewardship role, CC has also made public commitments about the development of its ShareAlike licenses: the Statement of Intent for Attribution-ShareAlike licenses following the publication of 3.0. After publication of 4.0, Creative Commons posted for public comment a continuation of that statement, but that has not been finalized for lack of demonstrated need or interest of the community.

While each version of licenses is drafted to conform with copyright law, the version 4.0 license suite includes significant improvements to ensure the licenses operate well internationally. Through extensive consultation with our global network of legal affiliates, the 4.0 international license suite is designed for use in jurisdictions around the world, without the need for localization beyond translation. CC has an established a policy for official translations of the 4.0 licenses as well as other legal tools.

The chart below and linked explanations that follow detail some of the improvements and important similarities among Creative Commons license versions. Some of the explanations contain links to further information on the topic.

Starting with version 3.0, Creative Commons drafted its core suite of licenses to conform to relevant international treaties and drafting conventions. In this sense, version 3.0 and the current 4.0 international license suites are jurisdiction-agnostic: these licenses do not mention and are not drafted against any particular jurisdiction's laws or statutes. They are intended to function without adjustment in all jurisdictions around the world.

Neither the international nor the ported licenses that address database rights export the sui generis rights to jurisdictions where such rights are not recognized (the ported licenses accomplish this as well through inclusion of a territoriality limitation). This avoids the imposition of restrictions based on sui generis rights via contract where those rights are not enforceable or recognized. You may compare how different jurisdictions implemented this section of the license.

The international licenses began to address moral rights in version 3.0. In version 4.0, moral rights are waived or not asserted to the extent possible under local law, to the limited extent they would otherwise interfere with exercise of the licensed rights. This avoids establishing moral rights through the license where they would not otherwise exist, but recognizes that there are jurisdictions where this limited waiver is not possible. The attribution requirements in Section 3 of the 4.0 licenses may satisfy many jurisdictions' right of attribution; however, they are a requirement of the license regardless of whether moral rights apply to a use.

No CC license version licenses patent and trademark rights along with copyright. These rights are treated separately and are not covered by the license. In 4.0, this was made explicit to avoid confusion. However, in all license versions, implied licenses may come into play where these rights would interfere with exercise of the rights granted by the CC license.

In the 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 licenses, attribution may be reasonable to the medium or means, and applied to all elements other than certain notices where the requirement is firm. In 4.0, this explicit permission applies to the medium, means, and context of use. We believe this to be a clarification rather than a change: attribution reasonable to the means, medium, and context of use should be permissible for works under any CC license. Additionally, the pre-4.0 licenses specified that credit in adaptations and collections should be at least as prominent as credits for other authors; 4.0 is not specific in this regard.

In earlier license versions, compliance reasonable to means and medium of use was not expressly permitted for all elements, as certain notices were excluded; however, in 4.0 these are included in the elements that may be fulfilled in a reasonable manner.

Beginning in version 1.0, one of the requirements for proper attribution was to include the title of the licensed work; this requirement was kept in versions 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0. In Version 4.0, this requirement was eliminated to increase flexibility and ease of compliance, particularly as many works do not have titles. Users are still encouraged to include titles where supplied.

The version 1.0 licenses contained no URI requirement. In version 2.0, CC introduced the requirement to retain a URI associated with a licensed work for proper attribution if it contains copyright notices or licensing information; this was kept through 2.5 and 3.0. In version 4.0, CC reconsidered this requirement. However, it was retained based on feedback from current and potential adopters that it is important for provenance, branding, and other reasons; a URI associated with the work is required as part of attribution if reasonably practicable to retain, regardless of whether it contains copyright notices or licensing information.

In some jurisdictions, wrongfully implying that an author, publisher, or anyone else endorses a particular use of a work may be unlawful. Though not explicitly mentioned in the 1.0, 2.0, or 2.5 licenses, this has always been the case. The version 3.0 licenses contain an express no endorsement clause. In version 4.0, this clause is expressed as a limitation on the rights granted by the licensor.

In the 4.0 license suite, licensees are required to indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material. This obligation applies whether or not the modifications produced adapted material. As with all other attribution and marking requirements, this may be done in a manner reasonable to the means, medium, and context. For example, "This section is an excerpt of the original." For trivial modifications, such as correcting spelling errors, it may be reasonable to omit the notice. 17dc91bb1f